Background
In 2023, the Vermont Legislature approved an amendment to the City of Burlington’s charter permitting noncitizens to vote in local City and Burlington School District elections. The noncitizen voters must meet enumerated criteria, including being legal residents of the United States, residing in Burlington, and taking the Voter’s Oath. The amendment explicitly preserved the citizenship requirement for state and federal elections.
Two U.S. citizens registered to vote in Burlington challenged the charter amendment, arguing that school board and school budget elections should be treated as statewide elections because school funding flows through the State Education Fund. They contended that allowing noncitizens to vote on school matters that “directly impact the State budget” violated Chapter II, Section 42 of the Vermont Constitution, which requires citizenship for voters in statewide elections. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the amendment was unconstitutional as applied to school elections and an injunction preventing noncitizen registration for these votes.
The trial court granted the City’s motion to dismiss, finding that school elections address distinctly local matters and are therefore subject to local—not statewide—voter qualification rules. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal and established a framework for distinguishing local from statewide elections. The court held that local and statewide elections are properly distinguished based on the level of government with authority over the matter voted upon. A vote is local if the question has been delegated to the municipality and such delegation is lawful; a vote is statewide if the question either has not been delegated or cannot lawfully be delegated to local government.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that elections become statewide based on their extra-municipal effects. The court clarified that while everything within Vermont may in some way affect state government, interpreting the Constitution’s requirement that statewide voters decide matters “concerning the State of Vermont” so broadly would render meaningless the Legislature’s ability to designate local elections. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether state government has authority over the election’s subject matter.
Applying this test to school elections, the court found the Legislature has expressly delegated authority over schools to local school districts through statutes recognizing that “one of the strengths of Vermont’s education system lies in its rich diversity and the ability for each local school district to adapt its educational program to local needs and desires.” Although Vermont education is of statewide concern, and the state funds schools through the State Education Fund, this does not transform school elections into statewide elections. The state may delegate local administration of education while retaining ultimate constitutional responsibility for ensuring educational opportunity. Therefore, school elections remain local elections, and the Burlington charter amendment allowing noncitizen participation does not violate the state constitution.
Key Takeaways
- Vermont Constitution Article II, Section 42 applies only to statewide elections and does not restrict voting qualifications in local elections.
- The distinction between local and statewide elections turns on the level of government possessing authority over the matter, not on whether the matter has effects beyond municipal borders.
- State funding of a local service does not convert locally-administered elections on that service into statewide elections requiring a state-level voter pool.
- The Legislature may lawfully delegate authority over schools to local municipalities, including authority over school budgets and board elections, even though education is a matter of statewide constitutional concern.
- Municipalities may extend voting rights to noncitizens in local elections without violating the state constitution’s citizenship requirement for statewide voters.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies an important boundary in Vermont’s dual system of local and statewide governance. By establishing that state funding and statewide significance do not alone convert local elections into statewide elections, the court has enabled municipalities to expand voting participation in local affairs without triggering Article II, Section 42’s citizenship requirement. The decision confirms that Vermont’s long historical practice of varying voter qualifications for local and statewide elections remains constitutionally sound, allowing for experimentation in local electoral rules.
For jurisdictions across Vermont, the decision signals that the state can, and has, delegated genuine authority over certain matters to municipalities—including education—without unlawfully shedding state constitutional responsibility. This framework also provides municipalities seeking to expand voting rights more breathing room to do so in local elections, while respecting the constitutional constraints on statewide elections.